Yarg yarg yarg, militant atheists, yarg yarg
Yes yes yes. We know. We’ve heard.
But some now say secularists should embrace more than the strident rhetoric poured out in such books as “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins and “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris. By devoting so much space to explaining why religion is bad, these critics argue, atheists leave little room for explaining how a godless worldview can be good. At a recent conference marking the 30th anniversary of Harvard’s humanist chaplaincy, organizers sought to distance the “new humanism” from the “new atheism.” Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein went so far as to use the (other) f-word in describing his unbelieving brethren. “At times they’ve made statements that sound really problematic, and when Sam Harris says science must destroy religion, to me that sounds dangerously close to fundamentalism,” Epstein said in an interview after the meeting.
And behold, it worked – here he is with his name in the Washington Post. It’s a way to get attention, and Harvard’s ‘Humanist chaplain’ has been getting it. That’s a shame.
Atheism’s new dogmatic streak is not that different from the religious extremists it calls to task…The suggestion that atheists may be fundamentalists in their own right has, unsurprisingly, ruffled feathers. “We’re not a unified group,” said Christopher Hitchens…”But we’re of one mind on this: The only thing that counts is free inquiry, science, research, the testing of evidence, the uses of reason…
Free inquiry, science, research, the testing of evidence, the uses of reason – what could be more dogmatic than that?
The humanists are taking advantage of renewed interest in atheism — in effect riding the coattails of Dawkins and Harris into the mainstream — to gain attention for their big-tent model.
And doing it by pissing on them, and doing that by saying things about them that are not accurate. Triply contemptible – hitching a ride and pissing on the drivers by calling them names that don’t fit.
The article talks to much better people as it goes on, but I do wish journalists would get around to ignoring Greg Epstein.
“Atheism’s new dogmatic streak is not that different from [that of?] the religious extremists it calls to task…”
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Frankly, I haven’t read the WaPo article, and probably won’t, because “ruffled feathers” doesn’t quite describe my mood. Maybe “seriously annoyed” or “pissed off” is more apt. Apparently, the fact that some atheists are stating their positions clearly, without mincing words, is being “dogmatic” according to the theists and their fellow travelers.
“Dogmatic” refers to ways of thinking based on unalterable concepts and formulas regardless of any new data. The domain of dogmatism is almost exclusively that of religion. It is only religion that demands, and makes a virtue of, faith in dogmas, which are asserted by the believers in the various religions to be indisputable truths, above criticism and sacred to the believers.
It’s pretty obvious that atheists aren’t dogmatic. We would become theists in a minute if we were presented with clear evidence as to the existence of some deity. Of course, that a supernatural being exists, capable of god-knows-what, like creating universes ex nihilo, is an extraordinary claim, thus requiring extraordinary evidence, but if shown it, 99.9% of atheists would convert to being theists, precisely because we *aren’t* dogmatic. We *do* examine any new evidence in order to make decisions about its validity and how it might influence our world view. Can the theists make such a claim? Obviously not.
Someone is trying to say that what used to be called “anti-clericalism” is OK, and so is “moderate” (wishy-washy) agnosticism, but that atheism is NASTY ….
It’s a fake wedge, in other words.
Alternatively, and possibly, more likely, the writer hasn’t thought it through.
Well, I tried to read the aticle but lost it at the bit about the new atheism (is it really so different from the old atheism) being strident. (The second sentence actually.) Pure journalistic boilerplate and getting very tired by now. Sad that the ‘religion news service’,which claims to be secular, can’t do a better job.
Hey,
I’m a Christian who is working on a series on Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion” at my blog at:
http://michaelkrahn.wordpress.com/richard-dawkins/
Join me there for some discussion.
Hey, no thanks. I’ll pass. It’s the Sabbath, and I’m not allowed to do such heavy lifting.
Of course, these humanists (and lots of theists) claim that atheism is dogmatic because in their view there is no rational basis for asserting that a rational method of inquiry can encompass all reality. Surely, they say, there is a possibility that some aspects of reality might be missed by purely rational investigation; isn’t it precisely the rational thing to do to admit that possibility?
I think they are conflating this question with the very different one of whether human beings can be “purely rational.” Of course, there are non-rational aspects to the human mind, and very important ones. Psychologists like Damasio even argue that emotions are necessary for reason to function. But it doesn’t follow from that that they provide some sort of alternative “access to reality” that rational inquiry can’t reach to.
To argue that, these folks would need to provide a rational argument for their position (because they can’t succeed in convincing the rationalists with an “emotional argument”), and to my knowledge, anyway, no such argument has appeared. The closest anyone has gotten to it, I suppose, is Kant, but even he didn’t claim, fortunately, that the requirements of moral reason give us any *knowledge* of the existence of God, etc.
Excuse me for intruding on the day of rest again, but it occurs to me that one very powerful motive many people have for this “ranting-about-ranting-atheists” thing is that a lot of people have the image of atheists as some kind of emotion-less, purely rational geniuses — pure intellects. And they want to protest: “Hey, I’m no genius, but don’t my feelings count, too? Don’t they say something about the nature of reality? Can’t I use my religious emotions to take part in this quest for knowledge, too, even though my IQ is not up there in the stratosphere?”
“But it doesn’t follow from that that they provide some sort of alternative “access to reality” that rational inquiry can’t reach to.”
Indeed. But that is the myth. It’s absurd, of course – emotions themselves are subject to rational inquiry, and a good thing too: rational inquiry helps us to understand them. Damasio’s book is certainly an example of rational inquiry.
And the ‘one very powerful motive’ thing – it dawned on me (all of a sudden, while driving down a leafy street in the rain) that often what believers are defending in these arguments is not God or ‘faith’ but themselves. They’re defending the thought ‘one can believe this stuff and still be just as rational as anyone else; like me, for instance’ – by defending God or ‘faith’ or both.
That’s both obvious and understandable, but it’s also interesting.
Yes, religious people do tend to identify with their beliefs, don’t they? :-) The habit philosophically or scientifically trained have of being able to debate propositions without becoming personally involved is not shared by the general public. (And even not a few philosophers and scientists can get their egos involved now and then.)
That’s why I think that calling religious people names like “stupid” and “deluded” just because their beliefs are these things is not the best way to win friends and influence people. Although it is difficult to consider someone intelligent who holds beliefs that ought to qualify them for honorary membership in the Flat Earth Society, Tinkerbell Division. Even if they are a scientist like Francis Collins.
To dispute atheism is spectacularly absurd, it should only be attempted by imbeciles.